re: Young men are turning away from Trump

quote:

---

No you didnt

---

A rose by any other name still smells the same.

quote:

---

Sucking off rhe deep state? So dumb

---

Yes, just because you like the people who get elected doesn't mean you're doing anything. In fact, it's most likely you aren't even thinking for yourself.

quote:

---

You clowns have said your day will come for the last 100yrs

---

You can doubt God, but I do not.

quote:

---

national-Parliamentary votin

---

You'll have to elaborate; I'm not sure what you mean by this.

quote:

---

Yeah, but those laws are only based on demonstrating support. So it's kind of circular reasoning. "Our party would get our share of votes if we could get on the ballot, but we don't have enough signatures to demonstrate we'd get enough votes if we did."

---

If the republicans/democrats have so much support, then they should be able to meet the same standards as independents. Instead, it's the independents who require things like way more signatures to get on the ballots.

You are just making excuses for the double standard. There is no need for these laws.

quote:

---

The laws as I understand them don't have different standards for different parties. They simply exempt the parties who have already demonstrated the threshold for support once from the next election. And the Democrats and Republicans aren't the only parties that benefit from that. Green and Libertarian parties do too in many if not most states. Because they actually have the required support.

---

Once again, if the support is there, it should not be difficult for them to get the required signatures like every one else.

quote:

---

Nah. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

When I look it up, I don't see any evidence of a double standard. Everyone seems to be held to the same standards of providing evidence that they aren't going to get the state to go to the trouble of putting their party on the ballot so that 8 guys from the local barber shop can vote for it while nobody else has even heard of it.

---

No, it's not the same standards of providing evidence.

quote:

---

The very obvious need is that without them you'd literally have 700 people on the ballot in any given state. If all you had to do is fill out a one page form at the Post Office, people would run just to say they did it.

And that's the thing that you anti-two party (even though we already have more than two parties on pretty much every ballot in the country) people don't seem to understand.

The more parties you have running, the fewer people have to vote for the winning party for it to win. Depending on how many parties you want on the ballot, conceivably you could have a POTUS that only 19% of the voters voted for (unless you'd want to have runoffs, in which case I would argue that such a system would be different from the primary system we already have in name only).

Having two dominant parties pulls the policies toward the middle because you need a broad consensus to win. Multiple viable parties pushes the policies toward the fringe, because you only need a relatively small but loyal chunk of voters to get elected.

That would result in a whole lot more Zohran Mamdani type candidates with real chances to win elections.

People who want white Christians to be in charge only think they want a strong multi-party election landscape. They'd hate it if they got it.

---

Maybe it's because Democracy fricking sucks, and at the end of the day the government shouldn't have so much power in peoples lives.

And what you are actually saying is those 19% or whatever shouldn't have a right to vote for how represents them. They should instead mold themselves to the establishment approved options giving the illusion of choice.

Id bet dollars to donuts that you are 100% FULL OF shite!!

Makes sense. Neither party cares about the common man anymore. Trump was supposed to be different but he fell into the same tracks as all the others. Doing some good stuff sure, but overall just another pawn for the corporate and lobbying class.

It's why Zohran is going to win NYC. The worst case in gen Z and alpha, if they aren't careful, is further tribalism between far left and far right. If they could focus on corporatism and not get sucked in to culture war shite, they may be able to fix the boomers mess.

quote:

---

Once again, if the support is there, it should not be difficult for them to get the required signatures like every one else.

---

Now who is advocating for completely unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense?

quote:

---

No, it's not the same standards of providing evidence.

---

As much as you want to whine like there's a double standard, every party is held to the same standard. You prove you have enough support to justify putting you on the ballot. There are two ways to do this. The same two ways for everyone.

quote:

---

Maybe it's because Democracy fricking sucks

---

No, democracy is awesome. What's not awesome is relatively unqualified democracy, which is what we have now, and NOT what the guys who created this country envisioned.

Letting anyone who is of a certain age (or above) and can fog a mirror vote is the problem.

quote:

---

government shouldn't have so much power in peoples lives.

---

What system absent democracy do you think would involve itself in citizen's lives less?

quote:

---

And what you are actually saying is those 19% or whatever shouldn't have a right to vote for how represents them.

---

Nah, that's more whining and misrepresenting on your part.

Those 19% can vote exactly how they want right now, without changing anything or anything being different. They can write their candidate in in the vast majority of states if they aren't on the ballot, and those votes will count. No one is taking away or has taken away the right for them to vote for anyone they want.

What I'm describing is how what you want would naturally change mass voting patterns. That's what you're doing too, btw. You just keep acting as though it's about "rights" and "laws" when all it's about is that not enough people care about these things enough to exert any effort toward them, they just pick a multiple choice name from a list that that's been put in front of them.

You know this as well as I do, but you want to make it sound like an "establishment plot." This is a function of people acting like sheep, not "the establishment."

Seeing 8-12 people on a ballot leads sheep in one direction, seeing 2-4 leads them in another. That's all we're talking about.

Apparently you think allowing anyone who wanted to to be on the ballot would lead to one or two additional parties that would be for "Muh' Merca'" instead of "the Deep State." That's not what would happen. For several reasons.

quote:

---

They should instead mold themselves to the establishment approved options giving the illusion of choice.

---

Only if they want to win. And if we had 8 parties on the ballot (which would be the new "establishment approved option") every election there would be a different set of concessions and compromises that candidates would have to make to appeal to voters, but yeah, if you're a politician campaigning and you want to win, you have to make some decisions that you wouldn't ordinarily make in order to get votes. New boss, same as the old boss.

Do you not understand that that is the whole nature of representation? That's the only way that citizens have any leverage over what their representatives do in office. That the representatives have to appeal to you as a citizen to get your vote.

That seems like a very elementary concept that you're missing.

And again, with 8 parties on the ballot, you could (and almost certainly would) have some combination of an ANTIFA Party, a BLM Party, a White Supremacist Party, a Communist Party, etc., etc., and those parties would actually have a chance to win the election. Over half of the country when polled still supports BLM, btw.

If all of those 8 parties split the vote it wouldn't take but 13% of the vote for BLM to win. The black population in America is 12.3%, and currently they vote in an almost completely monolithic bloc.

You don't want that. You apparently think that it bumps your "anti-establishment" street cred to think you want that and to tell yourself you do, and tell me you do, but I promise you that you don't. For the reasons stated above, and also because a nation governed by a POTUS that only 13% of voters actually voted for would be a very weak and unstable government because nobody would ever likely have any kind of citizen mandate to stretch toward anything.

For example, I've seen you post about reducing spending. You think ANYBODY with 13% of the popular vote is going to take up that mantle, when politicians who currently enjoy 50% and up of the popular vote won't do it? That's dreaming, sir.

And finally, why do "anti-establishment" people not realize the simple fact that when you overthrow the current establishment, it necessarily gets replaced with another one? Don't people read Animal Farm in school anymore?

So they won’t vote for Trump in 28?

quote:

---

Neither party cares about the common man anymore.

---

quote:

---

It's why Zohran is going to win NYC.

---

How does this jive?


They are mad at both parties so will vote for the democrat party?